1 2025:CGHC:3591-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 29 of 2025 The Municipal Corporation Durg Through Its Commissioner, Durg, District Durg (Chhattisgarh) ... Appellant versus 1 - Manohar Lal Jeswani (Died) Through LRS. Smt. Rakhi Jeswani W/o Late Manohar Lal Jeswani Aged About 59 Years R/o Raipur Naka, Sindhi Colony, Police Station Mohan Nagar, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) 2 - Tirathdas Jeswani S/o Shri Giddumal Jeswani Aged About 56 Years R/o Gurunanak Nagar, Police Station Mohan Nagar, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) 3 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department of Urban Administration And Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralay, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 4 - The Collector District Durg (C.G.) 5 - The Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue)/ Land Acquisition Officer Durg, District Durg (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Sandeep Dubey, Advocate For Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 : Mr. Prateek Sharma, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Dy. A.G. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 21 . 01 .202 5 1. Heard Mr. Sandeep Dubey, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Prateek Sharma, learned counsel, appearing for ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Date: 2025.01.21 17:56:23 +0530 2 respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the State/respondent Nos.3 to 5. 2. By way of present writ appeal under Section 2 of Sub-Section (1) of the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench Act, 2006, the appellant, who was respondent No.4 in the writ petition has challenged the order dated 11.11.2024 passed by learned Single Judge in WPS No.1474 of 2015 (Manohar Lal Jeswani (Died Through Lrs) Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), by which the writ petition filed by the writ petitioners / respondent Nos. 1 & 2 herein has been allowed by the learned Single Judge. 3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are that writ petitioner Manohar Lal Jeswani (died through LRs), who is claiming himself as land owner of land bearing Khasra No. 48/48 ad-measuring 3252 sq.ft situated at Patwari Halka No.15, Sindhyanagar, Katulbod, Tehsil and District - Durg has filed a writ petition being WPC No. 1474 of 2015 seeking for removal of the concrete cement road constructed by the appellant herein and to pay compensation to the petitioners for the period they were illegally deprived for using their own land. The said writ petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge vide impugned order dated 11.11.2024, holding that as per provisions of Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Gayabai Digambar Puri (Died) thr LR Vs. The Executive Engineer & Ors, reported 3 in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 15 (Diary No. 17566 of 2020), the petitioners are entitled for interest at the rate of 9% per annum over the amount of compensation from the date of taking over the possession till the payment of the compensation amount and directed the respondent / Municipal Corporation, Durg to make payment of the interest over the compensation amount within a period of two months from today. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant / Municipal Corporation, Durg has filed the instant appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that as far as the interest part is concerned, in the entire writ petition, no such relief was sought for by the petitioners in writ petition and the Municipal Corporation was agreed to return the land to the petitioner, but the petitioner never come forward to respond to the said proposal, even thereafter the Municipal Corporation offered them land in place of land and newly constructed shop within the area of Municipal Corporation, but they refused the same, thereafter, the Municipal Corporation had paid the entire compensation amount as calculated by the Assessing Authority. He relied upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Mrs. Akella Lalitha Vs. Sri Konda Hanumantha Rao & Anr reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 638 (Civil Appeal No.6325-6326 of 2015 28- 7-2022) and submits that it is well settled law that relief not found on pleadings should not be granted. 4 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 & 2 / writ petitioners opposed the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant and submitted that the learned Single Judge, after considering all the aspects of the matter, has rightly allowed the writ petition, in which no interference is called for. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and other documents appended with writ appeal. 7. It is not in dispute that the land of the writ petitioner has been used by constructing the road over the same in the year 2013. The appellant/corporation also not controverted the fact that the land of the petitioner has been used in the year 2013 and concrete road has been constructed over the said land. The appellant/corporation also accepted the fact that the land has been used but no compensation has been paid for the same, they have assessed the amount and requested the Land Acquisition Officer for acquisition of the land in question on 07/05/2013. It means, the land of the petitioner has been used and the concrete road has been constructed over the same prior to 07/05/2013. 8. As far as the contention of the appellant/corporation that no relief with regard to the interest has been sought for in the writ petition and they are not entitled for any such relief of interest is concerned, in the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court relied by the appellant/corporation itself it has been observed that it is 5 settled law that relief not found in pleading should not be granted. If a Court considers or grants a relief for which no prayer or pleadings were made depriving the respondent of an opportunity to oppose the relief, it would lead to miscarriage of justice. It means, even the relief which has not been sought for by the petitioner can be granted but subject to that can be granted by affording an opportunity to oppose or resist such relief to the respondent. In the present case, vide order dated 25/09/2024, an opportunity was provided to the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Durg to file an affidavit directing him to explain why the petitioner is not entitled for interest on the principal amount of compensation, though the land has been used since 2013 and the Corporation has filed an affidavit contending that though the land was used in the year 2013 but by filing a return to the writ petition, they have offered that they are ready to return the land which has been used by them and the petitioner did not come forward to accept the said offer, hence, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief of interest for the late payment of the compensation amount. On perusal of the record, it is found that the appellant / Corporation on their own made payment of the compensation amount to the petitioner which has been accepted by the petitioner by keeping open the question whether the petitioner is entitled for the interest or not. As the petitioner’s land has been used prior to 07.05.2013 for construction of road by the Corporation, but the compensation amount has been paid in the 6 year 2023 only, as such, considering provisions of Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Gayabai Digambar Puri (supra), the learned Single Judge has rightly held the petitioners entitled for interest at the rate of 9% per annum over the amount of compensation from the date of taking over the possession till the payment of the compensation amount. 9. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / respondent Nos. 1 & 2 herein, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 10. Accordingly, the writ appeal, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra